Book Reviews : Britain in a Divided Europe 1945-1970. Elisabeth Barker. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. £3.50
| Published date | 01 December 1971 |
| Date | 01 December 1971 |
| Author | W. Horsfall Carter |
| DOI | 10.1177/004711787100301213 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
1032
an
undue
knowledge
of
economics,
it is
doubtful
if
it
would
sustain
the
interest
of
most
general
readers.
John
White’s
study
is
designed
with
a
more
specialist
readership
in
mind.
It
is
an
expert
analysis
of
the
Inter-American,
African,
and
Asian
Development
Banks
as
‘‘escape
hatches&dquo;
from
the
United
Nations
system
in
general
and
the
World
Bank
in
particular.
Dr.
White
probes
the
reasons
for
establishing
the
three
regional
banks,
examines
their
nature,
and
assesses
their
capacity
to
evolve
in
response
to
the
demands
of
their
mem-
bers.
All
those
concerned
with
development
relationships
should
find
the
opening
chapter
on
&dquo;The
Demand
and
the
Response&dquo;
of
great
interest,
particularly
in
relation
to
contemporary
claims
for
the
universal,
multi-
lateralist
ideal.
The
chapters
on
the
three
regional
banks
themselves
are
extremely
informative.
Dr.
White
concludes
that
none
of
them
have
suc-
ceeded
in
shifting
the
balance
of
control
towards
the
poor
countries
whom
they
are
designed
to
serve.
The
complexities
of
international
development
assistance
have
nowhere
become
more
evident
than
in
the
realm
of
food
aid.
Pictures
of
starving
children
might
evoke
initially
strong
responses
from
the
public
in
rich
countries,
but
domestic
obligations
to
the
agricultural
sector
are
more
likely
to
move
governments.
The
intensity
of
the
pressures
exerted
on
governments
is
demonstrated
in
Hal
Mettrick’s
first
class
study
of
world
food
aid
and
Britain’s
contribution
to
it.
Dr.
Mettrick
examines
two
major
questions:
first,
what
is
the
nature
of
the
&dquo;food
problem&dquo;
in
developing
countries,
and,
second,
what
are
the
trends
in
surplus
food
production
in
the
rich
states?
Food
Aid and
Britain
is
a
provocative
and
readable
critique
of
the
rationale of
such
aid,
which
urges
a
greater
flexibility
of
response
by
the
haves
towards
the
many
and
urgent
needs
of
the
have
nots.
CAROL
ANN
COSGROVE.
Britain
in a
Divided
Europe
1945-1970.
Elisabeth
Barker.
Weidenfeld &
Nicolson.
£3.50.
If,
as
is
commonly
assumed,
’Europe’
be
identified
with
the
Community
of
the
Six,
British
policy
in
the
25
years
since
World
War
11
can
only
be
described
as
blinkered
and
ineffectual:
not
a
black
record
indeed
but
a
meld
of
grays,
a
concatenation
of
illusions.
The
alleged
myopia
of
suc-
cessive
Governments
derived,
of
course,
from
the
conviction
of
the
Establishment
that
Britain
was
still
in
the
nature
of
things
a
Great
Power:
the
fact
of
being,
in
the
Churchillian
image,
the
point
of
intersection
of
three
interlocking
or
overlapping
circles
- links
with
the
Continent,
the
Commonwealth
and
the
United
States
- placed
her,
it
was
thought,
in
a
quite
different
category
from
her
neighbours
in
Western
Europe.
In
that
context,
indeed,
the
charge
of
failing
to
’speak
European’
and
cleaving
to
a
status
of
world
importance
which
the
facts
of international
life - and
her
economic
weakness - belied
is
difficult
to
rebut.
Hence
Dean
Acheson’s
boutade
that
&dquo;Great
Britain
has
lost
an
empire
and
not
yet
found
a
role&dquo; :
i.e.
&dquo;the
attempt
to
play a
separate
power
role&dquo;
was
foredoomed.
But,
as
is
invariably
the
case
in
international
affairs,
the
picture
pre-
sented
is
a
crude
(if
pardonable)
oversimplification
of
an
infinitely
more
complex
reality.
Miss Barker
was
a
Diplomatic
Correspondent
for
16
years
(with
the
European
Service
of
the
B.B.C.),
and
the
great
merit
of
her
wide-
ranging
and
thoughtful
study
is
to
have
placed
post-war
happenings
in
the
context
and
perspective
of
the
political,
economic
and
military
issues
confronting
the
West
as
a
whole.
She
never
for
a
moment
lets
our
attention
stray
from
the
primary
factor
of
the
Soviet
Union
and
Eastern
Europe.
From
the
beginning
of the
fifties
there
was
in
the
chancelleries,
so
to
speak,
an
obsession
with
Germany.
Britain’s
leaders
were
perhaps
all
the
time
more
alive
than
the others
to
the
wider
issue,
the
East
European
problem,
but
&dquo;they
tended
to
fall
between
two
stools.
They
risked
unpopularity
with
their
allies
because
of
their
enthusiasm
for
summit
meetings
and
their
liking
for
conciliatory
diplomacy.
But
they
could
never
achieve
a
break-
through
in
relations
with
the
Soviet
Union,
nor
even
discover
if
such
a
thing
were
possible,
because
they
had
too
little
freedom
of
movement ...
&dquo;
Thus,
for
Britain’s
poor
showing
in
the
European
stakes
there
were
at
least
To continue reading
Request your trial